Go Back   Disc Golf Course Review > General Disc Golf Discussions > General Disc Golf Chat

View Poll Results: Which of these best describes Hole 18 at the Utah Open?
A par 2 where 38% of throws are errors, and 1% of throws are hero throws. 6 25.00%
A par 3 where 24% of throws are errors, and 33% of throws are hero throws. 16 66.67%
A par 4 where 16% of throws are hero throws, and 23% are double heroes. 1 4.17%
A par 5 where 37% of throws are hero throws, and 21% are double heroes. 0 0%
A par 6 where 16% of throws are hero throws, and 62% are double heroes. 1 4.17%
Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #3841  
Old 07-08-2019, 08:35 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 24.3
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 15,094
Niced 3,289 Times in 1,454 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
Thanks. Maybe what I'm looking for is a way to choose among the possible numbers we could select for par for those holes where the expected score isn't obvious. For those, if the definition doesn't provide an single answer, perhaps we are free to set a secondary set of selection rules. Like, perhaps, choose the one that is closest to average.

However, talking about a possible rule like that is getting a little ahead of where I'm at. I want to step back and see if there is any way to look at par on a meta basis to see if it's good or not.

Sometimes when we can't define how to make something better, it is easier to define how to make it worse and then do the opposite.

We all knew par was not as useful as it should have been 5 years ago. We didn't need to look at individual holes to know that. (Although some individual holes provided more evidence.) How did we know par was not fully useful? What was bad about it? How could it have been worse?
It seems to me that you're trying to apply some mathematical certainty and precision to some imprecise terms. In particular, "errorless". I respect the effort. But it's more than I wish to make.

For myself, with a hole without clear expectation, I tend to look at a range of results---average, most common score, median (or something a bit higher, maybe 60th percentile), and then take a stab at it. With a hope that such holes are few enough to have only a minor effect, in the grand scheme.

*

I guess there are a couple of ways to judge whether par is good.

One would be, if it reflects the expected score, it's useful in all the ways previously discussed. Spectators following results, portability, etc.

The other would be, if it matches golf, at least in certain ways, then it's useful aesthetically to those who think it should.
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #3842  
Old 07-08-2019, 08:44 PM
Jukeshoe's Avatar
Jukeshoe Jukeshoe is offline
<------ [YOUR AD HERE]
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Ethersphere
Years Playing: 10.1
Courses Played: 220
Posts: 7,555
Niced 163 Times in 88 Posts
Default

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica
Reply With Quote
  #3843  
Old 07-08-2019, 09:28 PM
Doofenshmirtz's Avatar
Doofenshmirtz Doofenshmirtz is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Years Playing: 7.4
Courses Played: 94
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 994
Niced 321 Times in 161 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
. . . and there'd no longer be any confusion about them.
I suspect that there is far less confusion than the stevewesters are willing to acknowledge.

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #3844  
Old 07-09-2019, 10:37 PM
SD86's Avatar
SD86 SD86 is offline
Snowflake
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Atlanta, GA
Courses Played: 8
Posts: 9,071
Niced 2,147 Times in 1,581 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hampstead View Post
How about we abolish par and just count strokes?
It's not a bad idea, and of course this is how the tournaments are ultimately decided; not by relation to par but total score.

However, there are a couple of problems with abolishing par, and they have to do with viewing on the the various media outlets we have today. First, a viewer would not have any way of knowing how well or poorly a player was doing unless the viewer knew very well what each hole was like.

For example: "Paul McBeth is at 120 throws after hole 9 of the third round; Ricky Wysocki is at 127 throws after hole 11." So... who's winning? And is hole 10 a 1087-foot hole that would be a 'par 5'? Or is hole 10 a 325-foot hole that is a very birdie-able 'par 3' (and by SOME people's desires, should be labeled a Par 2?) If you don't know, it's very hard to follow along.

The second reason is similar to (maybe the same as) the first. The Masters ball golf tournament went to relation-to-par to facilitate TV viewing. "Paul McBeth is -21 after the ninth hole of the third round; Ricky Wysocki is -19 after the 11th hole of the 3d round" tells us that Paul is in the lead by two, though with two more holes to play. You don't need to know if the next 6 or 7 holes are par 5s, 4s, or 3s; you know where the players are relative to each other relative to par.

Ergo, relation to par is good for viewers, regardless of whether or not the TD set par correctly. For the players, it's still all about the fewest throws from the tee box to the chains...

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #3845  
Old 07-09-2019, 10:51 PM
Hampstead's Avatar
Hampstead Hampstead is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Spaceship Earth
Years Playing: 29.5
Courses Played: 64
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 3,150
Niced 1,369 Times in 462 Posts
Default

Or, you could simply show a stat that says Player A leads Player B by 4 strokes with three holes to play.

Disc golfers would understand.


We really need to get away from the fantasy of sports fans who don't play casually watching a tournament.

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #3846  
Old 07-09-2019, 10:52 PM
SD86's Avatar
SD86 SD86 is offline
Snowflake
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Atlanta, GA
Courses Played: 8
Posts: 9,071
Niced 2,147 Times in 1,581 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krupicka View Post
I think the best way to set par is to have Paul McBeth play the course and then add one to his score on every hole.
Taking this seriously for a second, I've said before and I'll say again: no matter what you (plural) do to set up a course, either the super-elite players like McBeth, Wysocki, etc. will shred it, or the rest of the field will be destroyed by it. So if Paul McBeth is throwing par, then the vast majority of the field is being crushed by many strokes over par. There is just too much disparity in the MPO field, talent-wise, and ditto that for the FPO field. Some players are just TOO good relative to the others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DG_player View Post
I'm not sure that's how the quality of a hole design should be gauged.

I'm convinced all this par obsession is bad for our sport. Tournaments on open courses have become almost impossible to watch. There's so much roping in an effort to make the scoring more difficult, that all you see the top arms do is throw control shot after control shot. Personally I want to watch the big arms throw big. How many people do you think would watch the PGA tour if the courses were set up so Dustin Johnson and Bubba Watson hit an iron off every tee?

You can't have ball golf like scoring at the top level without making our courses boring to watch.
What I said just above applies here, also.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DG_player View Post
I don't think anyone other than you sees this as appropriate.

If we did there would be holes labeled par 2 and I don't believe I've ever seen a tournament label a hole a par 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMantle View Post
I can't believe you're asking this. If we do as you say, we end up with a ton of par 2s. So, you only have a birdie if you ace. We also end up with ridiculously long par 3s and 4s where the only birdies are fairway aces.

I really don't think you are even trying to be honest at this point. I am also suspicious that there may be something wrong with you.
And while I commend Steve West's doing all these graphs and stuff, I am still concerned that a lot of his reasons for doing it is to justify having Par 2s on courses. And I continue to maintain that when a top-tier pro tournament, or anything Tier-C and above, has a Par 2, then DG is finished as a sport to be taken seriously. Par 2 is like setting up the windmills and playing putt-putt. Par 2 = not serious, and not seriously taken, disc golf.
Reply With Quote
  #3847  
Old 07-10-2019, 12:09 AM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is online now
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 30.6
Courses Played: 692
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 12,182
Niced 1,527 Times in 694 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD86 View Post
And while I commend Steve West's doing all these graphs and stuff, I am still concerned that a lot of his reasons for doing it is to justify having Par 2s on courses. And I continue to maintain that when a top-tier pro tournament, or anything Tier-C and above, has a Par 2, then DG is finished as a sport to be taken seriously. Par 2 is like setting up the windmills and playing putt-putt. Par 2 = not serious, and not seriously taken, disc golf.
There is nothing inherently wrong with par 2s. They may have less scoring spread at times but the holes play faster. We've officially used them in 2001 and 2002 Worlds. The sky didn't fall. Players don't shoot as far under par. Those against par 2s are apparently scared that if we don't emulate ball golf in the area of par that we'll never get credibility with mainstream media. (Are you really that scared for the sport or are you projecting your own dislike of not being able to birdie?)

There are so many other things where DG can never emulate ball golf's path and the jury is STILL out on our potential to ever get enough eyeballs for a financially sustainable pro tour. The case can be made that avoiding par 2s actually undermines our credibility even more by disguising the true scoring challenge for our top pros when we have the mathematical and computational ability to match and even surpass the quality and usefulness of statistics within DG versus BG with the side benefit to help improve both our temp and permanent holes and courses.

The idea that pros may not like par 2s is mostly irrelevant in our march toward administrative professionalism in our sport. Pros are expected to perform under pressure and are getting significantly more resources spent on their behalf than their numbers. Par 2s add more pressure, especially if it bugs them. I suspect that pros in BG grumble a bit when a daily par 5 is changed to a par 4 in tour events but accept it's an appropriate par change for their skill level. Par 2 is just a number, not some tricky hole design element like an elevated basket. Par 2s would certainly be a much milder annoyance than the trend to add temporary OB everywhere that actually costs strokes and actually makes the sport look less refined when played on temp venues.

Reply With Quote
  #3848  
Old 07-10-2019, 01:05 AM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.4
Courses Played: 360
Posts: 4,937
Niced 1,650 Times in 811 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD86 View Post
And while I commend Steve West's doing all these graphs and stuff, I am still concerned that a lot of his reasons for doing it is to justify having Par 2s on courses. And I continue to maintain that when a top-tier pro tournament, or anything Tier-C and above, has a Par 2, then DG is finished as a sport to be taken seriously. Par 2 is like setting up the windmills and playing putt-putt. Par 2 = not serious, and not seriously taken, disc golf.
First, thank you.

Second, I would not mind if there were no par 2s at any sanctioned tournament. Just as I wouldn't mind if there were no par 6s. While they both may have something to contribute, they're both not necessary, and I'm not opposing anyone who thinks they are a bad thing to have. However, just like we can't get rid of the par 6s by calling them par 5s, we can't get rid of par 2s by calling them par 3s.

All I want to do is identify them. Those who run the tournaments on courses that have Par 2s can decide if the stigma is worse than setting par too high; and whether avoiding either problem is worth changing the hole.

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #3849  
Old 07-10-2019, 06:41 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 24.3
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 15,094
Niced 3,289 Times in 1,454 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hampstead View Post
Or, you could simply show a stat that says Player A leads Player B by 4 strokes with three holes to play.

Disc golfers would understand.
.
Not quite as simple if the players are in different groups, and have a different number of holes to play.

It can be done, of course. "Player A leads by 7 but has 5 holes to play; player B trails but only has 3 holes to play." Doesn't really tell you who's in a better position. So you can add something about those holes, what the average scores are or how long they are or something, and then the listener has an idea.

But if you give scores relative to par, and particularly if the par is well-set, it immediately conveys the relative standings.

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
 

  #3850  
Old 07-10-2019, 08:00 AM
SD86's Avatar
SD86 SD86 is offline
Snowflake
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Atlanta, GA
Courses Played: 8
Posts: 9,071
Niced 2,147 Times in 1,581 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
There is nothing inherently wrong with par 2s. .....
Again, I believe 'Par 2' would cause the total loss of any respect DG needs to become a legitimate sport, and DG would be relegated to the likes of Putt-Putt, especially if there was 'Par 2' on the course of a professional tournament. JMHO, YMMV.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Par 4s - multiple in a row or sprinkle par 3s into them? ToddL Course Design 9 02-23-2018 09:47 AM
Poorly designed par 4,5,and par 6 holes and bad high par courses optidiscic Course Design 159 09-12-2014 10:53 AM
Cgkdisc and jeverett talk about par Steve West Course Design 53 05-05-2012 08:37 AM
Deuce or die par 3's or play for par, par 3's? BrotherDave Disc Golf Courses 14 04-29-2011 12:04 AM
Par and Pro Par for multiple tees with different pars? marcusmpe General Disc Golf Chat 6 04-26-2010 06:13 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.